tv [untitled] September 29, 2010 10:30am-11:00am PST
neighborhood pride and ownership for those that use it, live here, residents, workers, and visitors. but does so, the budget proposed to do these services on an annual basis is $743,970. and we have a proposed timeline in the petition phase right now. if the petition comes back in support of the district, we would present a resolution to the board of supervisors to establish the district, but we are not there yet. in the petition phase we have not got them back yet. >> but they are out in the street? >> yes, they have been mailed. supervisor avalos: yes is the 30% threshold? >> is up to you to decide, if
there was 30% support, it is up to you to decide if he wanted to move a district forward with only 30%. you can move it forward with more support. supervisor avalos: we control the fate of whether or not there are 30%. every private property owner could vote no, but we have enough weight to make it happen anyway. >> yes, but then you have to vote for the resolution of intent to move forward in the would not have to. even with 30% support you would not have to move the district to a ballot phase if you did not choose to. >> remind me, afterwards the results come to us and we must vote to a implement it? >> yes. after the ballots are mailed out and returned, even if there is majority support for the district, supervisors must fill
the side on establishment. >> is that december 14 in your line? >> yes. at this point the petitions are out and have not been collected. we are hoping for them to be returned by october 8 so that they can be analyzed at that point. if it looks like there is strong, private-sector support for this district and we have close to 30% private sector support, we would introduce the resolution to establish the district. supervisor elsbernd: that is different from what i understood. i thought that if we voted yes on the item, that would bring the necessary 30% for moving forward. you are telling me that public properties do not matter, that we need 30% of private property is? >> that is our goal as the steering committee.
if we do not have private sector support for this combined with the city, it would not be able to be implemented properly. it would not be my recommendation to move forward exclusively with city support. supervisor avalos: i am trying to figure out why this is necessary. if we are looking out wanting to get a 30% threshold from the private sector, why not just do that? going forward to decide if we are going to pass the resolution if the intention is not to and that -- establish cbd. it seems like the right process to go through, seems consistent with what we just did at ocean avenue, giving the private sector a way to weigh in. i look at this as a foregone conclusion. legally 30% as a threshold, we
could vote for it today, authorizing the city to sign on the petition. then we have the threshold past mumbai denn this seems like that is putting the cart before the horse -- that we have a threshold past and this seems like this is putting the cart before the horse. we have such a big wave of ownership here in the civic center area that might not be the best way to assess the temperature out there in the private sector. >> again, the board of supervisors controls when to introduce resolutions of intent to establish. it is a policy decision whether to vote for a petition or not. our office is asking for the city at this point because the
private sector needs to know we are in partnership. i am not saying you need a resolution of intent with exclusive city support and no private sector support. what i am suggesting is that the private sector has asked for us in the decision making, they want to see that we are partners and they want to know that the -- that we will move forward together. this district is not like any other district, so we are handling it very differently as the city is a significant stake holder. with state department's voting as well. we want to get literally private sector support in state private sector support, when we do have
everyone's support. with the city voting on this petition, it does not require the process to move forward. there is no legal requirement that you have to move it forward. but the private sector wants to see that we are supportive of this bill, which is why we are bringing it to you earlier than normal. i can answer additional questions, but i wanted to finish this. the city particles, which are a part of the petition, represent 24% of the weighted vote in the district. there are also parcels under exclusive jurisdiction and if the supervisors would not vote, their boards would vote for
those parcels. including the performing arts garage, parking authority parcel, the war memorial parcels. each of those boards have their own. >> in the end they will teleport -- they will. >> if i am not explaining this broccoli, i apologize. i understand that some apartments have jurisdiction over assessments that could be levied on the parcels, which is why they have brought to our
office the right to vote for their own petitions. i do not know if there is further clarification needed. supervisor elsbernd: it seems strange, if they vote for it, when their budget comes to us and we wanted to strike it out, we would not be able to. >> are there any other questions? i understand that this is a new policy request we are making. >> i am willing to go along with i will love boat if there's
no majority support of private property owners. i do not want this to be the city or state imposing on any foreperson that happens to own private property there. it would not matter if it was 100% of the government owned properties, when it comes time to establish that the board, it just feels way too much like big brother imposing on the sucker that owns private property if you do not have majority support. that will be important for this one vote to establish. i get the point that this in front of us kind of starts at, but be clear on the record, i will not be support of a lesser is that demonstrated majority private property support. supervisor avalos: i am confused
by the argument that the private side would like to see the city passed this resolution to show that they would be supportive. it does not make sense that that would be a hoot that we need to go through with this. i also feel somewhat like supervisor elsbernd, the private sector needs to decide on the town. i could see supporting this cbd knowing that there is that support on the other side. i would like to do that, there is even a great need to have that kind of service here. things that are lacking in the city that need to be here and
there is support in the board to do that uneven playing field is hearing what the people outside of the city, that makes the most sense to me. we can open this up for public comment. there is also a letter from supervisor daly that i am hoping that someone from his office could come read. i have a number of cards. unidentified speakers, [reads names]
>> good morning, mr. chairman. thank you very much for this hearing today. it has been terribly useful. thank you for -- that is great. i represent 100 been nests because of the companies that own and develop the 100 aaa headquarters. we have a significant interest in the area. we are very much behind the project. a lot of hard work has been done, as you have heard. a good result has already occurred, we feel that we have your support with the support of
the private sector, which is a part of a gold today, staged interim hearings to get your view. we do not want to ramrod this through. we are handling it with kid gloves. there is a lot about reached to members of our community. results would be that it would benefit the residence of the entire san francisco area, visitors to san francisco, it will make it and improve the situation for everyone. whereas the next level, we will come down and, hopefully, your support will be continued. supervisor avalos: thank you, next speaker, please.
ka>> good morning. i am the supervising director of the public library. we are very excited for the potential of the benefit district. we intend to ask our commission for resolution in supporting it. as we know, the library is very much in favor of partnerships in things that work logistically to deliver to the citizens of the city. we feel fairly strongly that the cbd will be effective in that manner. all of the other stakeholders, private and public. thank you for considering this. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> good morning, i am the
assistant director for strategic partnerships at the recreation and parks department. i am here to say that we are excited about the civics center and we will be bringing it to the commission on october 7, recommending that they vote in favor of the resolution. thank you for your time. supervisor avalos: thank you. is that on? use the one to your right. >> i represent mgm management company, we have been consultants to the neighbors on this process for the last year- and-a-half. my background actually goes back to 1995 when the first paper that i wrote recommended community benefit districts for the union square neighborhood. i have been involved in that
district since its formation and was also involved in the [unintelligible] benefit district. i understand your concern about the relationship between the public sector and private sector in this, but i think that your concerns are not necessary. as you will see, there is no opposition here today from the private sector. this process, all of the way through, has been led by the private sector. actually, the only wild card is the city. because, of course, supervisors have not had the opportunity to come to these community meetings. there is a great group of people out there that wants it. when i look at this, i think not about the board of supervisors making something happen, not
that the board of supervisors could make something happen that the public does not want, but that they could not stop something that the public very much wants, which is why it is important to get your affirmative not. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you, next beaker, please. >> i am a former board member for cbd, there is no oversight or accountability of them. they run for profit organizations and non-profit organizations. when you have neighborhoods with high rental populations i am not sure if they are even logical. i was part of the north of market tenderloin cbd and i was
asked to leave, i believe, unethically, and it is negligent to start another. this one seems to have a lot of public money behind it to be used for people's private whatever they want to do. they may not be the best way to implement things that should already be a part of neighborhoods. supervisor avalos: thank you, next speaker. >> may i have the overhead, please? this is the currentn cbd that they are talking about. i am a native san franciscan. this is the current plan. no community of reach to my neighborhood, i live downtown
and i belong to a number of entities. this is a map of the current one, four of which are already in existence. this is union square. as you can see, they are growing in the downtown area. this is a map of the greater union square bid. this was only the last year, they did not even talk about the civic center 1. they think that they put it on their map by in their own package. to let the community know. lastly, we have this giant thing going on. this is a amid market pack forming this month.
they want their consultants to include more property is in the civic center area north of market. this was as of the last meeting. you are taking more money out of the tax base with both of these entities. this is taxpayer money and i, as a consumer and so forth, paid into these businesses, etc.. i am concerned about the growth of both of these and how it is affecting the downtown area without proper oversight. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you, annette speaker, please. >> my name is michael nolte. can i have the overhead? i was involved in the market cbd, centerlines cbd, and
greater knob hill propose cbd. one of the things they are supposed to be about is outreach. i did not hear about this until today. how can we have committees that went for many months, according to your packet, without the our reach to the stakeholders, who are the residents along with neighborhood associations. at least the other ones currently in formation contacted us out of courtesy to let us know that there's was being formed periods de one being proposed in front of you today has not done the act of our reach.
i have a real problem with the city when it is clear that not even your fellow supervisor is for it. with that in mind, i have a letter -- i haven't seen the letter from supervisor daly but i assume it says no and you should consider that today. i also have concerns with the mayor's office promote it did, we know that it was through them that they took away the benches and all of that, i do not see how they will put in the kinds of amenities that we actually need in our community at the same time that they took them away. thank you. supervisor avalos: is there any other member of the public that would like to comment? please come forward.
seeing no one coming forward, we will close the public comment. i do have a letter from supervisor daly. i will read it into the record. "i am writing to express my concern for city parcels in the benefit district, casting positions in the affirmative. the mayor's office for economic worst forest before we declined. because the city-owned parcels in this area for the war memorial the comprise over 30 to 96% of the parcels, this will
undo the influence of the parcel bomb with certain thresholds are needed to initiate the district. as of today, a resolution that would initiate the formation of the benefit district has not yet been introduced. by approving the resolution before you authorizing the mayor to cast petitions in the affirmative de pre-empts the process. " but so, the current supervisor for district 6 does not supportive of this part of process. he did not state that he was opposed by himself. which i think is an important factor. on the way here today, before even consulting with the supervisor, i did have a concern about the over-influence that the city has in formation of cbd
in authorizing resolutions. i am not quite ready to support this resolution at this point in the process. i would be much more comfortable seeing how the petitions, in over the next few weeks. i am wondering, could you tell me the timeline we are at in terms of petitions? when we expect to close that and we moved to the actual resolution of intended formation in a vote. what is your time line? you need to get something done by a certain time, can you walk
us through that? >> absolutely. this proposed district is anticipated to commence in july of 2011. it was our hope that we could go through the legislative process by the end of the calendar year, as the department usually finalized their budget. we did not want to surprise city departments. we came early. if we do not get august petition support as necessary by october 8, which was the date that we
asked property owners to return, then we extended the petition organizing effort in steering committees have lists of folks that they know that they are calling and meeting with, doing these presentations with. october 8 was the goal. we asked property owners to return the petition by the eighth, so we do know if we will be coming back to the board. we do know if we have the support yet. but we have gotten at least 10% of the petitions back and we are hitting the pavement, trying to get more. that is the ideal goal, october 8, petitions will be returned. introducing the resolution of
intent on october 12 was the goal. that would have to get heard at a fiscal committee. then it would have to be approved or voted on by the board of supervisors. our target date would be october 26. if all of that legislation is approved, ballots could be sent out by october 29, allowing for a final ballot hearing at the end of this calendar year. supervisor avalos: does the city have the ability to find petitions without this resolution? >> i do not know if i understand your question. supervisor avalos: in order to get to the threshold that allows us to pass a resolution of intention of formation, does the
city need this resolution to be able to file petitions? we did not need that at ocean avenue. >> as a city we did not sign petitions. but we did in other districts. the policy has been four other districts, where the city is not a major stakeholder, the policy has been that the city has not voted in the petition phase four other districts. the city has voted in the ballot phase. for those we have authorized the mayor to cast during the ballot phase. this is the first time that our office, the mayors of this, ask